A Sense of Doubt blog post #2172 - 45 "Republican" senators unfit to serve and OATH breakers
You 45 senators are unfit to serve as you skipped history classes in college (if you even went or graduated) and are failing to uphold your oath to the CONSTITUTION.
— gmrstudios (@gmrstudios) January 28, 2021
‘Dead on arrival’: Trump conviction unlikely after GOP votes to nix trial https://t.co/yKsh9mN3UW via @politico
Republicans have sunk to many new lows below the frost line in our nation since the rise of Trump and Trumpists, but this new low continues to show that these people have no integrity, no courage, no respect for democracy, and no real knowledge of history, a subject they must have skipped in college, if they even went to college or graduated.
Nearly ALL of the republicans elected to the U.S. Senate, 45 to be specific, are gutless worms as they vote that the impending Impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump for inciting an insurrection, an attack on the U.S. capital, fomenting a bloodthirsty mob to storm the seat of our nation's government to execute "traitors," including Mike Pence the vice president, is unconstitutional. The mob would have executed people; they even set up a gallows with a noose.
And these 45 traitors to our country are in violation of their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution. They are unfit to serve. They care more about a mob of brainwashed people who have so lost touch with reality that not only do they feel that the election was stolen from Trump, but they feel entitled to attack the capitol building for the first time since the British did it in 1812. Five people died. Looting and terrorism was rampant. Many had guns and bombs and other weapons. One man was beaten with the staff holding an American flag.
And FORTY-FIVE REPUBLICANS are claiming that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to impeach someone who is now a private citizen, no longer in office.
The claim of the constitutionality of the impeachment is not true. In fact, historically, it was more common to impeach public servants once out of office than while sitting in office.
If this skewed interpretation of the Constitution were true, then public servants, including the president, could commit any manner of crimes, resign, and face no accountability.
The fact that Donald Trump was not immediately ARRESTED after the insurrection that he organized and caused, the insurrection about which he did nothing for hours and hours as people died, an attack he watched gleefully and approvingly, this lack of arrest is proof that our government does not work, that there is no provision for immediate action against a criminal and a traitor. This is a broken system. If I created such high crimes, I would be arrested, IMMEDIATELY.
THIS IS A BROKEN SYSTEM.
But now, for these gutless republicans who ONLY seem to care about re-election, power, and party unity, these "public servants," who are neither servants nor servants of the public, these shallow, hollow, petty TRAITORS who have no integrity, THEY are not fit to serve. With this vote, not only have they abdicated and violated their oath to uphold the constitution, since clearly they have no clue what the constitution says or what the historical precedent is, but they are making the claim that a president, or really any public servant, can commit crimes again the nation and NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
The trial will go forward. If there is justice, then seventeen of these cowards will vote to impeach and indict Trump for his crimes after it is PROVEN to them that it is constitutional to impeach people when they leave office, that it has been done before, then maybe these gutless worms will step up and do the right thing for the nation, for democracy, and for ALL the people they serve not just the loud, brainwashed idiots who think the election was stolen, and think it's so OKAY for them to commit violent terrorism and insurrection and that they can share their actions on social media and brag proudly about their part in an attack that destroyed government property and left five people dead.
Some of these same gutless slugs of scum are claiming that the impeachment is petty and vindictive because the democrats hate Donald Trump. This is like saying that it is petty and vindictive to want to see the rapist who raped my daughter tried and convicted in a court of law and then imprisoned so he cannot rape anyone else BECAUSE I HATE HIM. Well, of course, I hate him. He raped my daughter! That's not vindictive and petty. That's justice.
And these bags of fallacious wind have some audacity to claim ANYTHING is either vindictive or petty given all the bullshit that they have perpetrated in allegiance to the would be dictator and grifter Donald J. Trump. Really? You can make those arguments with a straight face?
Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, McConnell, Josh Hawley, and forty-one others. We will remember their names.
But if Trump manages to avoid indictment for his role in the insurrection, if our government fails to hold him accountable, then our system is broken, even more broken than we realized.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/26/rand-paul-impeachment-462655
‘Dead on arrival’: Trump conviction unlikely after GOP votes to nix trial
“This vote indicates it’s over. The trial is all over,” the Kentucky Republican says.
 |
| While Rand Paul said the vote shows that the House’s impeachment case is “dead on arrival” in the Senate, it is possible that some senators judge the House’s case differently on its merits. | Greg Nash/AP Photo |
Nearly every Senate Republican declared Tuesday that putting a former president on trial for impeachment is unconstitutional, indicating that the House’s case against Donald Trump is almost certain to fail.
The procedural vote, forced by Sen. Rand Paul, underscores the significant hurdles facing the House’s impeachment managers, who will need to convince at least 17 Republican senators in order to secure a conviction. Paul’s motion to declare the trial unconstitutional ultimately failed because Democrats opposed it; however, 45 GOP senators voted to affirm the Kentucky Republican's view, delivering an early and possibly fatal blow to the House’s case.
 |
| https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics/trumps-impeachment-trial-constitutional |
Some Republicans said the vote did not necessarily indicate their views on the merits of the House’s case against Trump, in part because Paul’s motion focused on a narrow procedural question. But Paul’s effort reflects the widespread belief among Republicans that the Senate should not hold an impeachment trial because Trump is now a private citizen and therefore is not subject to the punishment of removal from office — though that view has been strongly challenged by legal scholars across the political spectrum.
Just five GOP senators — Susan Collins, Lisa
Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey — voted with all 50 Democrats
to affirm the trial as constitutional and allow it to move forward.
“If you voted that it was unconstitutional, how in the world would you ever vote to convict somebody for this?” Paul told reporters. “This vote indicates it’s over. The trial is all over.”
Immediately before the vote, senators were sworn in for the trial, which is set to formally begin on Feb. 8. The House impeached Trump earlier this month on one charge of inciting the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, when pro-Trump rioters stormed the building in a rampage that left five people dead.
While Paul said the vote shows that the House’s impeachment case is “dead on arrival” in the Senate, it is possible that some senators judge the House’s case differently on its merits, especially as new information about the Jan. 6 insurrection continues to be revealed. Two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 senators, must vote for conviction in order for Trump to face punishments including being barred from holding federal office in the future.
Collins (R-Maine), who voted against Paul’s motion, agreed that the vote was indicative of the final vote on conviction. “Do the math,” she said. “I think that it’s extraordinarily unlikely the president will be convicted.”
“I don't think Democrats expect to have the votes to convict,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) added. “I don't think this is about accomplishing that. I think this is an effort to embarrass not only the former president but also members of the opposing party.”
Indeed, some of the 45 GOP senators who declared the trial unconstitutional said they would still weigh the evidence the House managers present independent of their vote on Tuesday, meaning that more than just five Republicans could be in play for conviction. Still, Tuesday’s vote strongly suggests that the House managers will fall well short of the two-thirds threshold.
“It emphasizes the importance of framing the evidence in a powerful way, and the trial team may want to evaluate whether witnesses will be called in effect to recall what Trump failed to do when he watched the assault in real time,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said, referencing the ongoing debate among Democrats over whether to drag out the trial by allowing the House managers and Trump’s defense team to seek witness testimony.
Republicans have been rallying around the legal argument that the Senate has no authority to put a former president on trial. Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, who has defended Trump on similar matters in the past, joined GOP senators for their weekly lunch on Tuesday.
Critics of that argument note that federal courts have consistently deferred to Congress to set its own rules and procedures, including the Senate’s “sole power” to hold trials for impeachment charges, as outlined in the Constitution. They also say that a president or any other official subject to impeachment could simply resign immediately before the Senate convicts the individual, thereby evading punishment that could include barring them from holding federal public office again.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Paul’s argument would allow a government official to “avoid a vote on disqualification by simply resigning.”
“By constitutional text, precedent and basic common sense, it is clearly and certainly constitutional to hold a trial for a former official,” Schumer said.
Romney (R-Utah), who has hinted that he would vote to convict Trump in the trial, pushed back against Paul’s effort, saying “the preponderance of opinion with regards to the constitutionality of a trial of impeachment of a former president is saying that it is a constitutional process.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was among the majority of GOP senators who voted alongside Paul. McConnell has been mostly mum about the House’s impeachment charges, though he indicated earlier this month that he was going into the trial with an open mind and later said Trump bears responsibility for the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection.
Republicans and Democrats alike criticized Trump’s conduct and his rhetoric leading up to the insurrection, in which he advanced unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud and falsely claimed that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from him. Just 10 House Republicans joined all Democrats in the vote to impeach Trump.
Ahead of the vote, Paul said Democrats were “angry, unhinged partisans, deranged by their hatred of the former president.”
“Shame on those who seek blame and revenge, and who choose to pervert a constitutional process while doing so,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “I want this body on record — every last person here.”
Murkowski (R-Alaska) said it was “unfortunate” that the Senate voted on Paul’s motion without significant debate.
“We don't get a lot of credit and we don't get a lot of allowance to change our mind around here,” Murkowski said.
During the Senate GOP lunch on Tuesday, Turley presented senators with both sides of the argument over the constitutionality of impeaching a former president. Some senators noted a recent letter from legal scholars, including some from the conservative Federalist Society, who argued a former president can be convicted, according to an attendee.
“We just talked about the history from both sides,” Turley told reporters after the lunch. “It’s just a really difficult question. They have a tough decision to make.”
According to Paul, Turley “said there's not a chance in hell that you could convict Donald Trump in any court in the land of incitement.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 2101.28 - 10:10
- Days ago = 2036 days ago
- New note - On 1807.06, I ceased daily transmission of my Hey Mom feature after three years of daily conversations. I plan to continue Hey Mom posts at least twice per week but will continue to post the days since ("Days Ago") count on my blog each day. The blog entry numbering in the title has changed to reflect total Sense of Doubt posts since I began the blog on 0705.04, which include Hey Mom posts, Daily Bowie posts, and Sense of Doubt posts. Hey Mom posts will still be numbered sequentially. New Hey Mom posts will use the same format as all the other Hey Mom posts; all other posts will feature this format seen here.
No comments:
Post a Comment